University of South Africa Users as the foundation of public programming initiatives in the ESARBICA region: A perspective from the national archives of ESARBICA Mrs N. Saurombe Prof P. Ngulube University of South Africa Pretoria, South Africa

Outline Introduction Problem Statement Objectives of the study Methodology Findings Recommendations Conclusion

Introduction Archival public programming: The function of educating people about the existence, services, and documentary resources of archival institutions (Bance 2012). This can involve a range of activities: Publications Exhibitions Tours Lectures etc.

Problem statement The most common role for archives internationally is a combination of record keeping and access. However for some reason access has been limited to a few researchers and historians (Ceeney 2008:58). This has led many archival institutions to neglect user studies and the evaluation of archival services (Maher 1986; Craig 1991; Wilson 2005; Ngulube and Tafor 2006; Battley and Wright 2012). Little is known about public programming activities in the ESARBICA region (Kamatula 2011; Kamatula, Saurombe and Mosweu 2013;Ngulube and Tafor 2006; Ngoepe and Ngulube 2011; Njobvu, Hamooya and Mwila 2012;Sulej 2014; Garaba 2015), and whether the assessment of user studies influence public programming initiatives (Ngulube and Tafor 2006).

Public programming challenges Lack of knowledge on users and use (including potential users) and matching them to relevant services; Archivists being more ‘material centred’ rather than ‘client centred’; Lack of funding; The exclusion of public programming or outreach initiatives in strategic plans of the institution. (Blais and Enns 1991; Bradley 2005; Ngoepe and Ngulube 2011; Sulej 2014)

Objective and Research Questions Assess the role of user studies and customer satisfaction in public programming initiatives. Do the national archives of ESARBICA conduct user studies? How do the national archives of ESARBICA conduct user studies? What do the national archives of the ESARBICA region do with the results? Do these results inform public programming initiatives at the national archives?

Methodology Quantitative study - survey approach to collect data from the national archives of ESARBICA. Self-administered Questionnaire: 12 Directors of the National Archives Semi-structured Interviews: 12 Archivists 3 ESARBICA Board members Content analysis: ESARBICA members country reports The responses from the questionnaire, interviews and country reports were analysed, compared and presented graphically and in themes. Response rate: Questionnaires- 9 (69.2%); Interviews- 8 (67%)

Findings Question Directors of National Archives Archivists How? Do you investigate User needs? 6 or 67%- Yes 2 or 22%- No 1 or 11%- n/a 7 or 88%- Yes Reading room stats. (5 or 56%) Information requests ( 4 or 44%) Guest books, suggestion boxes, surveys, evaluation forms Identification of New users? 8 or 89 %- Yes 8 or 100%- Yes What?- Induction, rules and regulations, online retrieval system, help with searches Customer Satisfaction? 7 or 78%- Yes Interviews, Evaluation forms, Questionnaires, Suggestion boxes Provide Feedback & incorporate in public programming? 5 or 56%- No 3 or 33%- Yes 8 or 100% Changes made and communicated (archivists) Attract potential users? 9 or 100% Websites, Open last Saturday of the month, Friends of the Archives, Visit learning institutions and public media

Findings contd. Duration of open hours

Findings contd. ESARBICA Board Members views: Raising an awareness about the archives is part of the ESARBICA 2013-2015 Strategic Plan. Public programming was not a priority. Pressing issues were: electronic records management, transparency, preservation and accountability. Country reports vague on user issues. Archivists in the region could learn more on user studies from libraries and museums.

Interpretation of the findings The focus of the national archives was on existing users and not much was done to determine needs of potential users of the archival service. Information for evaluation purposes was gathered by the archives however, little was done with regard to providing feedback to their users as well as utilising the information to improve the archival service Public programming initiatives rarely incorporated user needs.

Four paradigms of the archival changing environment (Cook 2013)

What can we do? Remember archives are kept for use. User studies are important! (Duff et al. 2008; McClauseland 2007). ICA Principles on Access (ICA 2012) state that archives should be proactive in facilitating access. This involves understanding needs of existing and potential users. Attract younger patrons (Garaba 2015; Van der Walt 2011). Do not neglect online users (Crymble 2010; Kim et al. 2015). Provide feedback to users and use this information to improve archival services (Battley and Wright 2012). Understand legal frameworks i.e. FOI laws (Garaba 2015). Develop a vibrant research culture e.g. libraries +user studies started in the 1920s (Joyce 1984). Use public programming projects to educate and address user needs.

Conclusion Public programming was NOT a priority in the ESARBICA region. “The role of the archivists is changing from administrators of records towards more of a service provider for users” (Garaba 2015:6). Public programming as a function centred on user needs can therefore be described as: a tool that enables public archives to communicate archives to citizens and receive feedback on services offered through a body of coordinated activities; with the aim of developing an effective and efficient archival service.

Department of Information Science University of South Africa The End. THANK YOU Mrs N. Saurombe Prof. P. Ngulube Department of Information Science University of South Africa Pretoria, South Africa mnkennp@unisa.ac.za ngulup@unisa.ac.za